After His Anderson Cooper Interview, Should We Look At Donald Sterling Differently?

Welcome to Two Sides, where AskMen pits two of our regular writers against each other to parse out what’s at stake in the day’s most controversial and buzzworthy news. Peter Hoare and Ian Lang are both great writers, but they have naturally opposing personalities. They're like oil and water. Fire and ice. Diamonds and rust. Actually, that might have been a Springsteen song or something. Point being, they like to take opposite tacks on the issues of the day. For the opposite side of this argument, check out the other take over here.

Monday night, ostracized LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling gave an ill-advised and even more poorly executed interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, which is funny because Don Sterling is a raging bigot and Cooper is openly gay. Honestly, I couldn’t sit through the whole thing — that goddamned voice of his is just too much; it sounds like when your buddy does his best Eric Cartman impression, only all the time. The transcripts, though, reveal very few surprises: Sterling uses racism to explain why he’s not a racist, accuses Cooper of being the “real” racist here, etc. It’s exactly what you’d expect from a man entirely out of touch with reality.

What interests me (or saddens me, take your pick) about the Sterling debacle is the internet’s reaction. Many people, who apparently have so much straw laying around that they have no choice but to construct men out of it, inevitably went down the “But what about free speech, man?” avenue. The more reasonable among them, knowing that even tacit endorsement of Sterling’s actions and statements would amount to social suicide, say something along the lines of “Well of course I disagree with what he says, but aren’t you worried about this snowballing into an attack on our right to say anything, even awful things?”

Hell no, I’m not. If anything, Sterling’s statements (and resulting discipline) are a perfect example of our right to free speech working precisely as intended.

I don't agree with what sterling said but he was in his own home. That's calle first amendment rights, can say whatever he wants #mrsbohn

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way: “freedom of speech,” as a constitutional right, refers to your ability to say whatever you want without fear of government prosecution. In Sterling’s case, all is well on that front — Obama isn’t going to swoop in on Air Force Racism and send Sterling’s ass to Gitmo. He’s still free to say whatever he wants, and I imagine he was speaking very freely when he found out about the tapes and the NBA’s subsequent action.

And that’s precisely what’s bunk about the “defending free speech” argument. Our right to free speech neither needs nor calls for anyone’s defense — it is a “right,” after all, granted to all Americans by the constitution and unrepealable other than by amendment. Disagreeing with what someone says but “defending to the death their right to say it” made a lot more sense in a time when you could get thrown into the stockades for denouncing the king, but that was the point: They fought for that right so we don’t have to. It’s not a privilege, or a condition. It is a right for all of us, granted at birth. So to all the would-be Patrick Henrys out there, cool it.

Donald Sterling fined & banned for life for having a differing opinion than general public. No freedom of speech?

I think (or hope, at least) that most people know this, so I think what they’re talking about is the more nebulous societal tolerance for free speech. And, really, that’s still there too. If I go into a bar and call everyone in there a “big gay f*ggot,” odds are that eventually, someone’s going to kick my ass. If that happens, guess what? They go to jail. Even if you’re saying something awful, we’re not allowed to use illegal means to suppress that speech. Like it or not, that’s a good thing. It keeps society from effectively circumventing our constitutional right to free speech.